[sword-devel] CrossWire mirroring
thulester at gmail.com
Fri Jan 4 23:12:34 MST 2013
Peter, please temper your judgement with mercy. Your claims here are
neither correct nor fair.
On Friday, January 4, 2013, Peter von Kaehne wrote:
> On Fri, 2013-01-04 at 16:49 -0500, Andrew Thule wrote:
> It is clear. Your lack of respect for what is expressed in the conf file
> re Distribution license is your problem and not a problem of lack of
> clarity on our side. It is up to you to read and act upon (or rather
> refrain from acting) instead of us spoon feeding you (or you to demand
> such spoon feeding.
The belief that Crosswire's license to distribute the ISV text was based
upon what was contained within the isv.conf. It was not unreasonable for
me to conclude therefore that additional contributions to the module would
fall under the same terms. Clearly when Nic asked about updating the
module, he apparently believed the same as I - specifically mentioning the
Perhaps, but lack of clarity on licensing constaint isn't doing this
project, or its volunteers any good. The actual language of the license
doesn't need to be modified for the wiki to be expanded.
I've already answered this, yet still, you stand my accuser, providing no
answer to my defence. Please don't make it seem like my offer to help was
a lack of respect, or unreasonable. That is simply a perversion of truth.
I do strongly suggest that we will _not_ expand the Wiki. The licenses
> in the conf file are legal language, often written by the publisher's
> lawyers and can only be ignored wilfully and maliciously or by way of
> progressed and blind idiocy.
> Trying to second guess this legal language by creating a wiki page
> restating in our own words the content of licensing pages, explaining
> the often huge variability etc is liable to create confusion, confusion
> which then would be our responsibility.
> No ones tried to second guess any legal language. That unfounded claim is
just silly (and apparently being driven by a grudge). Do you deny the ISV
is currently being distributed by Crosswire, or that interest was shown by
others in seeing it updated. Is there anything anywhere that suggests
additional changes to that module are not currently permitted? Are
there any reasonable grounds to show that an offer to provide an update to
the ISV inline with the original request was unwarranted?
What's causing confusion is the distorted way you are portraying my actions
The licenses we have vary wildly. While we have endeavoured to put
> standard descriptive sentences on modules, this has not happened
> universally and many modules have individually written copyright
> statements. FWIW, this will also make script driven partial mirroring
> impossible or at least rather difficult.
> Well, that's patently false. As long as the .conf files accurately
reflect their licenses appropriately, and those licenses remain honoured,
it is a trivial thing to demonstrate accurate mirror synchronization (I can
demonstrate this now)
I thought the goal was to digitally propagate the Word of God as much as
possible while still meeting a moral and legal obligation to safeguard
copyright? Subtle hints of oligarchy manifesting itself as enthusiastic
polemics against those offering help makes it seem otherwise; almost as
though the goal here to stock-pile a pseudo-public repertoire of heavily
licensed texts in the name of CrossWire.org, alone for the benefit of
The dominion of trust, more than technology, is the impediment here.
Ultimately, it comes down to the project's true purposes.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the sword-devel